tv Green New Deal Senate Debate Preview CSPAN March 23, 2019 10:41am-12:14pm EDT
mcconnell is fixated on a number of $93 trillion which is a wild estimate that includes medicare for all. -- the republicans feel it is so big, they can do find it in the bit -- anyway they want. >> you pointed out instances where the majority leader has done that. they will need 60 votes to advance this legislation. a number of democratic senators are planning on voting present. the idea is take the air out of the balloon, has appear. present, they can show the world mcconnell is not serious about addressing climate change. when you talk to democrats about it whether it is sure our
marquee, they always ask -- what is the problem -- republicans plan. that is something the democrats will try to emphasize during the debate next week. in 50 minutes, we will bring you the portion of a senate debate on the green new deal proposal. first, a portion of the news conference with massachusetts alexandriamarkey and or casio says. they reached new legislation on .ebruary 7 >> thank you for being here today on this very important moment. i want to thank my partner on resolution.ew deal on to thank all the hosts and
manyrs rather hereal, with others who have signed on or will be signing on to this resolution. this is an incredible moment because all of the supporters support the today climate, clean energy, social justice, public health, movement. never in our history has the interests of all americans been so united on a single issue. climate change. from there we believe -- brief to the jobs that employee is, to the neighborhoods we live in. to the economy we operate within. climate change defined our existence. are theemperatures
highest in recorded history. is at itsequality highest point since the era of the great depression. coastlines,of our the earning power of workers, the pollution of our planet, the pollution of our democracy by big oil, the interrelationship of these ills and injustices is undeniable. the challenge is not insurmountable. it will only be through a historic generational commitment to and climate change that we create the kind of democracy that works for all americans. we will save all of creation by creationin massive job . with -- we can deliver a green
new deal for america. what are we talking about? when we talk about a green new deal, we're talking about jobs and justice. we are talking about the greatest blue-collar job creation program in the generation. about repairing the historic oppression of honorable communities which help form the worst burdens of our fossil fuel economy. president roosevelt was right what he said about his new deal. statesmanship and vision require time. to all at the same we are talking about a historic tenure mobilization that will mitigate climate omissions, build client resiliency. we have acted on this scale before and we must do it again.
wind,d massive energy, solar offshore wind. storage batteries. our energy future will not be found in the dark of a mind but in the light of the sun. efficiency, clean and portable public transit, clean cars in manufacturing and working with industries to eliminate pollution. we are putting forward a set of principles. leveragingvide financing, providing the -- new resources. jobsn create high-quality and enforced labor standards. guarantee rights and conduct
inclusive decision-making. there will be critics who say this to go far enough or this can never get done. these are the same cynics who said audio companies would never fuel economye standards. the same naysayers that insisted a global climate agreement in paris was entirely impossible. i am continually comforted by their consistency. they have been consistently wrong and the greatest and i are of them all is in the white president who did not utter the words climate change during his state of the union two nights ago. on the most important issue facing this country, his state of the union was silent.
reason drum on the deniers offer to give up his proof positive we should push forward harder. the question is not whether all democrats can support this resolution. it is if any republican will support this resolution. the question should not be, if we can do it, the answer should .e when we will do it five decades ago the ambitious goal of sending an american safely to the moon. he did not say how it would be done but that we would do it. we would need a diet rocket with new metal that had not been invented yet and it would have to be returned safely to earth within 10 years. bold.ed us to be say, it is time to be
bold again. we have the moral obligation. we have the economic paradigms. we just need the political will to get this done. the sun is setting on the dirty energy of the past. today harks the dawn of a new era. when we look back, this will be the moment when we will be able to say the political tide has turned on the rising seas. leadershipaiming our on the most important issue facing humankind. this is the new climate democracy for the planet. here.k you for being [applause] you,want to introduce to the great ocasio-cortez.
mythank you to all of colleagues that have joined us. this is incredible. this is a major watershed moment and i am incredibly excited we are going to transition this country into the future and we are not going to be dragged behind by our past. i am excited by that. today is not just a big day for us of the delegation, as a party , as the movement. this is a big day for activists all over the country and for frontline communities all over the country. today is a big day for people who have been left behind. today is a big day for workers in appalachia. today is a big day for children who have been breathing dirty air in the south bronx. today as a good day for families
who have been enduring the injustices of drinking dirty water or who have seen their living room being flooded in seas.he waves of rising today is a big day for our economy, the labor movement, the social justice movement, indigenous peoples and people all over the united states. today is the day we embark on a comprehensive agenda of economic , social and racial justice in the united states. that is what this agenda is about. climate change and our environments -- environmental challenges are one of the biggest existential threats to our way of life, not just as a nation but as a world. in order for us to combat that ambitious must be as
and innovative in our solution is possible. what we are doing today and introducing these resolutions today is it is not a bill. it is a resolution and what this resolution is doing is saying, this is our first step. our first step is to define the problem and define the scope of the solution. we are here to say small, incremental policy solutions are not enough. they can be part of a solution but they are not the solution onto itself. there is no justice and no combating climate change without addressing what has happened to indigenous communities. that means there is no fixing our economy without addressing the wealth gap. we are not going to transition to renewable energy without also transitioning from my communities and cold communities
and to economic opportunity as well. that is what this is about. it is comprehensive. it is awful. it is compassionate. to assertchoose ourselves as a global leader in transitioning to 100% renewable energy and chatting that path. that means we are not going to peg ourselves by the lowest standards of other nations. it does not mean we are going to say -- what about them? they are not doing it. why should we? we should do it because we should lead. that is what this nation is about. we are a country founded on ideals, of a culture that is innovative, that cares for our brothers and sisters. we should do it because we are an example to the world. we need to save ourselves and we
can save the rest of the world with us. that is why we define the scope of this resolution to be brought and comprehensive. we are outlining the green new deal and in the spirit of franklin roosevelt we have the green new deal and green new deal projects. authority was a new deal project part of a larger vision. thispeople say, what about or what about that? this is whys not, it is not in here. the answer is that is part of the solution too. i hope you all see that. i hope you all see the scope and scale. the solution is not going to come from one congresswoman from the bronx. it is not going to come from one senator. it is going to come from all are representatives of a country saying this is what iowa needs. this is what virginia needs. this is what michigan needs.
this is what illinois needs. this is what new york needs. we have this threat the challenges all of us. the solution is going to take all of us too. i am thankful. i want. it might -- i want to reiterate my thanks to the organizers who made this moment happen and created the political energy to be relevant and put it at the top of the agenda, not the bottom. thank you. on march 6, republican senators gave speeches criticizing the green new deal. eventually democrats begin responding on the floor as well. speakers during this portion of the debate include texas republican john cordon, minority leader chuck schumer, and markey of massachusetts and republican john barrasso. the chair of the senate committee on national -- natural resources. president, last week as
spoke on the senate floor about the perils of socialism. i never thought in my life i would have to do something like that but given the rise of democratic-socialist which is a contradiction in terms, i think it important to remind the american people about the failures of socialism as well as radical policies like the ones the democrats are trying to push off on the made -- american people. if you want to know what command and control of economies are and what it would need to our freedom and liberty, all you need to do is look at the green new deal. this is nothing more than an attempt to mask this power grab by the federal government in feel-good environmental policy, by mixing ideas like medicare for all and guaranteed jobs for unrealistic policies. would you stand for a
question instead of filibustering what he says? >> i would not be interrupted. >> we know what he is not for. >> the senator from texas has the floor. >> mr. president, i am not for socialism. for.y what he is the senator from texas -- >> if he would be quiet for a minute i would tell him what i am for if he would quit interrupting. what this is is a brilliant power grab in washington, mixing ideas like medicare for all and wildlyeed jobs with
unrealistic and radical environmental policies like transportation systems and guaranteed green housing. proposed thetion ire of people on both sides of the aisle, something we do not see often in something i do not know if i ever see. one of the bill's authors -- seven ties. when you introduce an idea and the united states congress, you are begging the majority leader to put it on the floor, the committee chairman to advance your idea. when the majority leader said he would do that to the green new deal, it was called sabotage. deal was green new rolled out, things in washington have gotten wacky and even crazier. we put a price tag on the green new deal.
you heard the senator from iowa talk about the $93 trillion. that is so much money i doubt most of us can wrap our brain around it. it is like if somebody tells you the earth is 140 million miles from mars. have you conceptualize that? you have no point of reference. let me put it this way. if you combine the gross domestic product of every country in 2017, every country -- in planet and 2017 2017, the price of the green new deal would be higher than that. amount theled the united states has spent since the constitution went into effect in 1789, the price of the green new deal would be higher. if you totaled up the valley of one years worth of oil and gas production in texas, it would take seven centuries of
production to pay for the green new deal. margaret thatcher, who had a gift for words said the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money. in this case you do not have the money to begin with, but that is what this is about. this is the antithesis of what our founders believed in when they founded the u.s. of america. they believed checks and balances and separated powers make decisions for ourselves. they've -- they view the concentration of power would be -- would bestic antagonistic to individual liberty. things like eradicating air travel are not the answer. that would not work very well if you tried to get to hawaii from
washington, d.c. no matter your perspectives on energy or the environment, i think everyone of us can single out something we can agree on and that is smarter policies that will not bankrupt our country. the solution is not the green new deal or another government power grab. it is about innovation and the creativity of americans doing research and science. >> the senator from texas has the floor. >> i would seek to be recognized to ask the senator the chilean dollar number comes from an organization. >> the senator from massachusetts will suspend. the senator from texas has the floor. >> i noticed when people around here, colleagues across the
aisle do not like what they are hearing, they try to suppress or .rown out dissenting voices the american people need to hear this debate. our ability to innovate is critical to the success of our economy and competitiveness in the global economy. investing in silence and technology, and increasing our ability to innovate is an important part of keeping our economy strong. rather than the government receiving control of and agree industry, we should harness the power of the private sector to drive affordable solutions and that is how we find cutting-edge solutions. people tried to break -- paint broad strokes about energy. you are either on the side of innovation or in favor of traditional oil and gas development. a stateud to come from that believes in all of the
above approach. we generate more electricity from wind than any other state and we believe in all of the above. you do not have to pick one or the other. not only do we lead the nation in oil and gas production, we lead in went and energy production. you can implement policies that get government out of the way and leave industry experts to do their jobs. you can be pro-energy, pro-innovation and progress. the green new deal is not the answer to our problems. it is a solution in search with a problem. it is a power grab by washington, d.c. seeking to impose on every american how we should run our lives. it is the opposite of the individual liberties and freedoms that i believed our country would be based on. i hope in the coming months we will take steps to promote freedom and ideas that lead to innovation, not socialist policies.
>> mr. president. my colleague said he would yield to a question after he finished debating. i would like to ask a question. >> the senator is recognized. >> i appreciate that. number one, does he believe climate change is real? does he believe it is caused by humans? does he believe this body ought to do something about it? >> mr. president i would say to my friend from new york, i know what their talking points are but i do not believe what we ought to do about the -- has imposed tragedies like the green new deal. this is a power grab. it is unaffordable and it reflects the most radical ideology of the fringe of the democratic party today. we should not have a socialist power grab of our entire
economy. >> he did not really answer my question. what would he do about climate change? we have not heard from the other side of the aisle anything about climate change or whether they even believe it is real and caused by humans. i asked my colleague again. what is he for? >> there is a great book called omics that talk about the threat to the environment of horse manure back when we had horse-drawn buggies in our cities because an internal combustion engine had not been created. hazard when antal way almost overnight because the internal combustion engine was created. , hisi was growing up
scientist wrote a book called the population bomb. he said millions of people would starve across our country and basicallyunless we quit having children. when he miscalculated was the impact of a gentleman by the log and thean for green revolution he began through research and development of an innovative theme. come of thatto the, the population bomb, and we were able to deal with horse manure by innovation. that is what i said and that is what i would say again to my friend from new york. recognized from indiana. >> mr. president, i rise in opposition to the so-called green new deal.
unaffordable, unattainable and unrealistic proposal is bad news for all americans, but it live in myly bad who home state of indiana. indiana is the most manufacturing state in the country. .y hoosiers are proud of that we make america's planes, cars, trucks, recreational vehicles, boats, pipelines, aluminum, steel. it goes into these products. .e might mind the cold indiana is home to respectable high-paying jobs because of the workforce. our world-class infrastructure network and are low energy costs . but the green new deal would crush indiana's affordable energy prices. forcing the cost of doing business to skyrocket for farmers.
eliminating jobs in the process. dealwould this green new mean for american families? the so-called deal would cost up to $65,000. per american household per year. that is 50%. 47% more than the household income. support in all of the above energy strategy and islet board forward to working in a bipartisan way to get that done. we must develop renewable energy sources like wind and solar. but we must also continue to utilize are important baseload energy sources. this is your natural gas, your nuclear power. we cannot afford to eliminate these critical sources.
in indiana, 90 2% of our electricity is generated by coal and natural gas. 6% ofnd solar account for indiana electricity. produce the electricity indiana needs. study -- instead of turning a blind eye to coal, let's continue during research and development. instead of promoting job killing, legislation like the green new deal, we should be promoting proposals like an act that is bipartisan legislation put forward by my colleague from wyoming that would promote carbon cash research and development. >> mr. president. >> we agree on the need to incentivize market-based carbon captured.
>> will the senator from indiana yield for a question? >> i will continue until a plea my remarks -- complete my remarks. we agree on the need to ensurevize systems and america can affordably produce baseload energy. this is just one of many areas in which republicans and democrats can find common ground. and work together to protect an's green earth indiana is environmentally conscious state. we love natural resources like the indiana dunes and hoosiers international for us. we cannot support a proposal like the green new deal which would endanger hoosier jobs. it is wildly out of touch with indiana's priorities. hoosiers know a deal -- no a bad
deal when you see one. that this radical proposal will cause utility bills to skyrocket and forced indiana factors to shore -- to shutter. ima resounding no on the green new deal. i stand with who are your farmers, who are your this 93urers, putting trillion dollar deal. -- senator senate from indiana yield for a question? do you believe climate change is real? will you stand with the scientific community, which thatve almost completely climate change is real and human activity causes it? >> i publicly set for a long time -- you can check my record
that i believe the climate is changing. all human beings have some impact on that. believe we can protect our environment without wrecking our economy. we can do that through energy --iciency initiatives carbon initiatives, carbon capture, adoption of free market principles. i read a book in response to my good colleague early on in my adulthood. i would commend it to him. eccocide in the ussr, explaining how centrally planned economies in fatal efforts to engineer a better environment essentially -- essentially, to plan and
economy centrally are decimating our natural environment. that continues to have an impact . look at these issues. perhaps you will find an opportunity to work together and find common ground. it will not be on the green new deal. i may. >> thank you. mr. president, i join my colleagues in concerns over well , a poorly constructed policy in the green new deal. i want to start by saying i have no intention of yielding until the end of my remarks. the one question i have, is do you actually support the green new deal? do you support it in the form it has been proposed? i cannot imagine you do because you understand the math. you understand the reality that $55,000 a year is the medium household income in north carolina.
talking about is the cost of this bill over 10 years is what the average family make. that is not sustainable. have not sustainable to our electric bills increase by $3800 a year. it is not sustainable to go beyond the energy component of the green new deal to other aspects of the green new deal. $93 trillion is something i cannot get my head wrapped around. that is the number we are talking about. get to the we can household impact and recognize it is not sustainable. why are we having this discussion? it is a bogus number made up. that is a made a number by the koch brothers.
the senator from massachusetts will suspend. >> the senator from north carolina has the floor. >> thank you, mr. president. i will state for many other members who have come in, i have no intention of yielding. it has never occurred to me to interrupt the way we have interrupted here but maybe that gets to the point. proposed -- as proposed does not work. as a member of the north carolina house, when i was in the minority as a republican i supported the portfolio standard. i went to my colleagues and said what you are proposing is not sustainable. let's do something different. we did. that gave rise to almost 13% of
all the energy generated in north carolina today being generated renewable sources. it gave rise to a sustainable electric ill that is one of the most competitive in the country. what has happened with the new in theeal is the people extreme are preventing those of us who actually want to make progress from having a reasonable discussion. i do not care if it is 93 trillion dollars or 10 chilean dollars, it is unsustainable. we all know this was theater. this is something people wanted to pitch. they wanted to win an election but it was a dishonest promise that could never be fulfilled. if you take a look at the other provisions of this bill, is readingjobs -- it like some sort of a socialist manifesto. as somebody who grow up in a trailer park who did not get a degree until i was 36 years old,
i want an america that gives me an opportunity, not an america that tells me how much money i am going to make. we have to have a realistic discussion. we are pushing people into corners and not having a discussion about things we should be making progress on. by the way, we have had some people go so far as to say maybe we should reduce the number of cows on the planet since they create methane gas. is inthe chicken caucus favor of eating more cows. why don't we lower the temperature, recognize we have a proposal that does not work, recognize it was motivated by politics and when you take an extreme stance, you should expect the other side to come to the floor just as we do today and make it real. thank you. president, there was discussion about the energy parts of the green new deal but it goes and lots of other areas.
there are frequently asked questions. i say on the energy costs which president obama's energy advisors say you cannot reach the goal, the one thing we need to remember of the energy cost is that families pay those utility bills. we avoided a clean power regulation that in my state would have doubled the utility bill in 10 or 12 years. during the three yours are so we were debating that because court cases kept saying, no there is not the authority to do this. i kept reminding the people i work for, next time you write your utility bill, righted out of your check one more time because of his goes into effect within a decade, that is what you would be doing and see what happens when you write that bill at of your check one more time and what happens. some of the questions on this have been about other things as well.
the fact that we love a challenge, this green new deal creates that, talks about medicare for all. talks about at least in the talking points, job guarantees for all. a vacation in every job guaranteed by the government, maybe a vacation in the government program if you choose not to work. there a lot of things for people to be concerned about. there are estimates of cost but wereresident, if they three times the cost it would be extraordinary. $36 trillion would rebuild the entire interstate highway system every year for 100 years. when you are talking about $93 trillion, the entire gross domestic product of the world, these are big numbers. it is a big bill. senatorsgly, a dozen
are supporting this bill. they have cosponsored the bill. whether it is the guaranteed jobs number or the universal health care number or the all renewable electric grid system number, or the guaranteed green housing number that individuals would have to comply with, this is an amazing step in a different direction. it is one the country will not take. it is one the sponsors even have concerns about and we will have a chance to vote on it in the next few days or weeks and we will see with the american people have to say. i yield. understand the majority has the floor and so i will be brief. i have enormous regard for those who have spoken already.
for theo say that people who want to say we have a discussion about this issue, we are so eager to have a discussion. i come here every week hoping to have a discussion about this issue. i would love to have hearings about a climate bill. to have people working together to solve this problem. i will say that senator schatz and i have a piece of legislation that is not this one, but it does have the support of seven republican former chairs of the presidents council of advisors, six current and former republican congressman, four republican administers, three former treasury or state -- secretaries of stress or he -- treasury or state and one former republican
cbo director. a republican congressman referred to that bill as not just an olive branch reaching out, but an olive limb reaching out to republicans. i hope what can emerge from this is a real conversation about real bills and in the context of that we would be interested to know what the republican proposal is to deal with climate change. with that, i turn back the floor and think of providing officer and appreciate the courtesy of my distinguished colleagues. >> the senator from west virginia? >> thank you, mr. president. i would like to thank my colleague from iowa for organizing the discussion on the green new deal resolution. the public does not pay attention to nonbinding resolutions in congress but that is not the case with this one. the sponsors of the new green deal in the house and senate
deserve recognition for the curveball they created so quickly. that is a double-edged sword because people are beginning to pay attention to what is actually in the green new deal. leader mcconnell has proposed bringing the resolution to the floor, which has created a baffling response. sponsors are claiming the vote is cynical, meant to disrupt their movement. knowresident, you and i every member of this body would clamor to have their bills brought up for consideration. most of us live in the land of realistic and practical solutions. does include deal enough details it proposes radical solution that are neither practical nor realistic. it is a wish list just up as environmental policy. we knew it was going to be expensive. we knew the goal is to eliminate
gas industries as well as good paying jobs and this is not the first on the war on coal. we knew, but this is a massive shift -- a shift to the left that goes far beyond anything the democrats have proposed before. the plan does not stop at eliminating the use of coal and gas or electricity. it ends nuclear electricity and curtails the commercial air industry. and energymental components of this proposal are 8.3 to $12.3 trillion over the next decade, which averages out to $71,000 for every american household and -- to makess with the american manufacturers competitive around the globe. and nuclearural gas
energy account for 83% of all the electricity produced in the united states. it is neither practical more realistic to believe we can test all of that capacity out without catastrophic consequences. this is one piece of the green new deal. the sticker combined with tens of trillions of dollars for people unwilling to work, eliminate private health care for 170 americans in favor of a government run system, replace housing stock with environmental compliance and guaranteeing it to every american and putting food on everyone's fatal -- table. we could look at all the wealth in the entire country and maybe cover that cap but we would not have anything left. the green new deal claims the government will be making investments, that the returns will pay for everything and make a profit.
realistic? practical? i think not. some say the green new deal, even if it is a disaster of a policy that would destroy our economy, at least congress is talking about climate change. this is what we heard together. disservice to us because we have been working in a bipartisan fashion to deliver real solutions since before anyone had heard of the green new deal. senators from coal state such as senator -- from wyoming and senator whitehouse from rhode island and senator carper and myself have been working for market-driven solutions for the challenge. members of both parties have worked and will continue to work on these policies to meaningfully address carbon challenges will also protecting and creating jobs. we do not need a $93 trillion alters the foundations
of our country. we are capable of making investments in infrastructure to address our nation challenges in a commonsense way. the green new deal is not practical. it is not realistic and it is scary that so many democrats are embracing it. the american people deserve to know where each of us stands on this policy. that is why we are going to have a vote. diane glad we will have the opportunity to take a vote in the coming months and i hope all my colleagues will join me in opposing this utterly, unfathomable and unworkable resolution. i yield the floor. president, the senator from indiana. >> i have prepared remarks to address what many of my colleagues have discovered and that would be the preposterous proposal of the green new deal. i want to take a different angle. often thoseoint so
of us on the conservative side of the ledger, get overwhelmed by the conversation being dominated by the other side and it is a fertile ground to want to use a better environment to parlay that into more government. what we have got here is just like addressing health care .osts, we had obamacare the affordable care act which turned out to be the on affordable care act, but there were issues that were valid. in my own company, i was worried about it. drafted a plan that was proactive, i just high health care costs, made the pledge you should never go broke he could you get sick or have a bad to thet, crafted a plan real world to cut cost. my employees have not paid a
premium increase in nine years. i want to take the green new deal. i am a conservationist. i am a member of the nature conservancy. as a business and individual, we cannot let the other side co-op the issue, preempted because they think the argument is on their side. i am not going to belabor the i want to make the point if you think any of that can be done, keep in mind we're running nearly trillion dollar deficits. we're $22 in debt. does that sound like anything that the federal government could actually solve in a sustainable way when we're in a pickle like we're currently in? until we change the dynamic here and get into the the the fwoles that i think we know how to do things where it works in
states like indiana, in many states, maybe like states have a bigger hand in the equation where their budgets are balance, where they have cash balances, where it's not a false hope. let's look at the particulars of what the green new deal is supposed to do in addition to cleaning up our environment which we have made great strides with. it's being spawned as an economic argument. it is the exact opposite of that. i want to challenge folks on our side of the ledger from the practical side to where we generally lose out on the general argument and incremently things change against us over time. we just had legislation pass in 2017. i want to tell this little story what we did in our own special way. i'm going to challenge enterprises, i'm going to challenge businesses across the country to think about this as a way to avoid that.
2017, we had in my opinion for enterprises, small businesses, farmers, i've been involved in both. the biggest opportunity that's come along in years. we are keeping more of our own resources not sending it here to a broken institution that's given us all these deficits and debt. but we've got to do something with it. back in january of 2018, my son who is one of my three kids now in my business, said, dad, let's take tax reform, let's share the benefits with employees. great idea. i didn't think it would have a bigger political meaning until he said, hey, let's put it in the company memo that it's due to tax reform. we had taken, in my mind, the biggest thing -- whether you'd want to return the the dividends into the the
environment, into higher wages, into whatever you want to do, and we've had less than a year to run with it. all i know is that many mpanies in indiana, ours, we lowered health care costs, flattened them for nine years, we raised 401(k) benefits. we've started quarterly bonuses instead of just annual ones, and we're doing what i think this country needs to do, quit looking to the federal government to solve all of our problems even when they've got an argument like we need to further improve our environment. we need to avoid possibly a catastrophe down the road where we do stick our heads in the hand. but don't look to this institution to do it because i don't think you can credibly say that you can do anything in the context of the product that's been delivered over the last decade or two. states, individuals,
businesses, organizations, but especially businesses because we reap the benefits in my opinion of the biggest legislation that's occurred in decades, put our money where our mouth is, where my companies' is, invest in your employees, change the system from the botp up, not from the top down. >> the senator from alaska. >> mr. president, first i want to thank my colleagues for coming down here and having this important discussion. i thank my democratic colleagues who i have a lot of respect for, for being here and having this debate. i'm sure it's not going to be the first time we're going to be doing this on the green new deal or other proposals. this is a big issue what's happening in the house, what's going to happen over here with some of our colleagues. i think in many ways it's an issue that focuses on the future where the country is going as the majority leader recently said in an interview,
i can pretty safely say that this is the first time in my political career that the essence of america is being debated. socialism, democratic capitalism. ok. let's have that debate. we're having that debate. what is the essence of america? i believe it is freedom. and liberty. and that's what we're founded on. that's what i think proposals like the green new deal would undermine. to be clear, some people are joking about it, about banning hamburgers or airplanes or returning to the horse and buggy. but i actually think there's many people who are looking at this very seriously and so we should. and some of these ideas can be funny until they're not funny. so what we're trying to do here is talk about this proposal in a serious manner. in my state, the great state of alaska, in a deadly serious
manner. there's so much that's in this idea the green new deal, the government takeover of health care, free housing free food, the list goes on and on. the costs have been pointed out, are very high. but today, what i want to do is talk about one aspect that would be particularly detrimental to my state and many, many other states. my colleague from west virginia, north dakota, they're here on the floor. in that the proposal to ban hired car bons produced in america within a decade. ok, this is not a joke. there are many members in this the fwoddy, some on the floor right now, in the house who think this is a serious proposal and would like to do it. so i want to talk about that. now, i want to stipulate i'm certainly somebody in favor of all of the above energy. the fact that america is now producing more oil, more gas, more renewables than any other country in the world is good for all of us, democrat,
republican. my colleague from rhode island is here. we worked on a whole host of issues together involving oceans. i think that technological advances with regard to gas, hundreds of years of supplies of natural gas, with technology, with renewables, provides hugse opportunities for democrats and republicans to work together on, to bring down greenhouse emissions. enormous. we're just scratching the surface. i look forward to working with him and the senator from massachusetts on these kinds of ideas because i think they're exciting and i think when you're burning natural gas at very, very high temperatures you almost have very little reenhouse gas emissions. combine that, it's a great opportunity, exciting, and i want to work with them. bru let me get back to the proposal on the green new deal on natural e resources. in my opinion, we do not spend enough time on this floor talking about the positive societal benefits of natural
resource development in america. oil, gas. renewables. fisheries. so these industries don't just fuel power generation and transportation and electricity for our homes. these industries literally lift people out of poverty. they lengthen life expectancy. they literally save lives. there's a strong correlation between poverty and lack of economic opportunity and the health of our citizens. i'm going to show a few charts ere. this correlation in particular in my state particularly with our alaska nailtive population. in 1954, the int tierier department, with the help of the university of pittsburgh, conducted a study of the health
of alaska natives. here's the quote, 19r54. the indiginous peoples of native alaska are the strict ms of sickness, crippling conditions and premature death to a degree exceeded in very few parts of the world. some of the poorest people on the pleancht -- planet were my constituents. in alaska, in america, in 1954. more than ten years later in 1969, just 50 years ago, the situation was still dire. here's what the president of the alaska federation of natives told congress 50 years ago in 1969. the native people in rural alaska live in the most miserable homes in the united states. the life expectancy of the average native alaskan is 234 years old. -- 34 years old compared to 9 years old for the the rest of the country. -- 69 years old for the rest of
the country. so what happened after that? well, we had a big change. we're not there yet but a big change. i want to explain it. this was a chart studied in the journal of internal medicine just last year, a study that was published in 2018 about the life expectancies of americans. where you see blue and purple, is where americans life expectancy increased the most. the most. well, the state with the greatest change in the entire country was my state. that's a pretty important statistic, life expectancy. it doesn't get more important than that. are you living longer? look what happened in alaska. southeast, alution chain experienced huge increases in life expectancy from these very
low levels, some of the lowest in the world. why did that happen? why did that happen? here's why it happened. on the north slope of alaska this congress passed the transalaska pipeline act to develop pursued ho bay, to develop oil and gas. we also had a large zeenching mine at the same time that came under production. we also had, because of this body's act a huge increase in our fisheries. the bottom line, natural resource develop happened in alaska, in america, and people's lives increesed. people's lives increased. that is the a remarkable thing. and we don't talk about it enough. the average expectancy, life expectancy increase in alaska was almost between 8 and 13 years. that is a measure of success.
and it came because we were developing our resources, oil and gas. that's why i am taking this green new deal literally, deadly seriously, because what we've done in our state and in our country by producing resources is we created the ability for people to actually live longer. i challenge my colleagues to come up with a better statistic and more important statistic than that. i am going to end with a quote from a gentleman who exame down here and testified in front of the senate matthew rexford, in d alaska native leader the arctic national wild live refuge and he testified that congress should give his small community the opportunity to develop the resources near his village and we did that, in
2017, after a 40-year debate. he spoke first-hand about his knowledge about what resource development did for america, for alaska, and for his community. the oil and gas industry supports our communities by providing jobs, business opportunities, infrastructure investment. it has built our schools, hospitals, it has moved our people from third-world living conditions to what we expect in america. we refuse to go backward in time. that's what he said. i believe the green new deal certainly its ban on hide ro carbon productions would take us back in time. for the sake of matthew and all the alaskans who have done so well by responsibly developing our resources we're not going to allow that to happen. yeefl to my colleague from north dakota. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i --
>> the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. tuzz the senator from e alaska yield for a question? >> we've yielded the floor. >> i'm yielding my time to the the senator from north dakota. >> that's not possible. sorry. >> mr. preponderance. >> would the the gentleman from alaska yield? >> i believe i still have the floor. >> no. you yield it had floor. >> mr. president. >> the senator from massachusetts is recognized. >> i thank you. i would pose a question to the the the senator from alaska. >> the senator from massachusetts cannot pose a question. he has the floor. >> through the chair i would pose a question to the the senator from alaska about whether or not he believes that human activity -- >> the the senator from alaska does not have the floor. he cannot respond. >> for the warming of this
planet. >> the senator from does not have the floor therefore he cannot respond. >> well. >> the senator from massachusetts has the floor. >> i thank you mr. president. i would just make -- i will just make this point you know, through you mr. president, which is that there is nothing in the resolution, the word fossil fuels are not in the resolution. number two airplanes are not in the resolution. there's no guarantee for health care for anyone -- everyone in america in the resolution. number four, there is nodsic that provides for those unwilling to work in the resolution. none of this is true. we know that the the coke brothers paid for this $93 trillion study and that that's all we're hearing from the republican side is the coke brother produced document which is absolutely inaccurate. there's no banning of airplanes, there's no guarantee of medicare for all. none of that is in the
resolution. this entire discussion is based upon a completely fraudulent bogus report that the coke brothers produced. what we're trying to say to the other side is we should have a debate about the science. we should a debate about the human activity. we should have a debate about what the solutions are. and we should bring it out here. there's a great deliberative body. but right now we're debating the green new deal and the republicans haven't given us ny hearings, no scientists, no witnesses, no debate. they're just doing this as the coke brothers have produced the report of $93 trillion worth of -- which is completely and totally inaccurate. in fact, with regard to the accusation of the banning of airplanes, plitfakt has looked at it, examined it and said it is completely and totally
inaccurate. so i think it is difficult to have a debate when the facts here are those which we cannot submit to committees, witnesses, debates, instead all e're subject to is a representation of the green new deal which is completely inaccurate. the words fossil fuels don't even appear in the green new deal for that matter. so this is not right. if the the republicans want to they should sep up a debate and we have have it out here on whether or not the planet is dangerously warming, whether or not human activity is responsibly and whether or not this party should take action in order to deal with that problem and whether or not commeckically we should unleash a technological revolution to solve the problem. that is what we should be debating this afternoon, not a whole group of bogus facts
produced by the coke brothers paid for by the coke brothers that are being repeated over and over again on the other side without any republican saying that they actually believe that the planet is dangerously warming. they the actually agree with the u.n. scientists who say it is a threat to us. that they actually agree that it is largely cause bid human activity. and that we the greatest deliberative body in the world should have a robust debate and that the republicans, if they believe it serious, should present their own plan for debate out here on the senate floor. let's -- >> would my colleague yield? >> i would be glad to yield. >> we thank our friends from the other side of the aisle for helping make our case. we've been saying for several eeks that -- >> asking a question? >> yes. does the senator from massachusetts have the floor?
i ask a question of the the senator from massachusetts. >> i yield -- >> scuke -- >> would the senator from massachusetts yield for a question? >> yes. i yield. >> i ask unanimous consent to engage in a col question? i will ask a question. is the question from the senator. we've been making the case for the last several weeks that our republican colleagues, they love to get up and rant about what they're against. even though hey -- they exanl rate, they tell mistruths, about the bill that you have sponsored. but we've been asking repeatedly, haven't we, three questions. do you believe climate change is real? two, do you believe it's caused by human activity? and three, most importantly, what would you do about it?
here we've had an hour of debate, haven't we, from our republican colleagues, a lot of mistruths, a lot of here's what we're against. not one single thing that they are for. so isn't it true, my friend from massachusetts, that they've helped make our case? we're glad they're talking about climate change. finally. but we have to do something about it. and isn't it true we haven't heard a single, single positive response about what they would do? >> the leader has put his finger right on it. we want a debate. we want to see their plan. we want to the know if they the agree with the science, of the ine tire united nations, and 13 of our own federal agencies who produce an identical report at the end of 2018. it's dangerous, it's a great threat to our country, we have to do something about it.
so where is the republican plan? what is their answer? of course they don't have one. they want to bring out the green new deal with no hearings, no witnesses, no science, when they should be bringing out their own plan. and you are right, mr. leader, it is just basically a condition that they have and the number they're using the $93 trillion in terms of the cost of the green new deal is a coke bro brother produced number. their group put it together. so how could we possibly be having a serious debate about something that the the coke brotsders have produced in terms of dealing with global warming since they are central players in this dangerous warming of our planet? i would be glad to yield back to our leader. >> for a second question. now, isn't it true that our republican colleagues have been in the majority for five years, that during that time more and more americans believe that global warming is a serious problem, i think it's about two-thirds, 70%, a significant
percentage of republicans and a majority of democrats and independents. and isn't it true that in those five years we haven't heard a single positive -- that the leader, the republican leader, our friend, hasn't brought a single piece of legislation to the floor that would deal with climate change in any way. isn't that correct? >> the leader is correct. no solutions, five years, and it's only more dangerously warm on the planet. $400 billion -- $400 billion worth of damage was done to our country in the last two years. we've had fires out in the west, flooding. $400 billion worth of damage, and the the consensus among scientists is that the it is only going to grow worse as each year goes by, and still no answers. nothing on the floor from the the republicans, nothing that would deal with the problem, and no admission that it is caused by human beings and we
can do something about it. i'm glad to yield back. >> we have not heard a single answer from any of the senators on the floor or any who spoke about what their plan is. so i would ask you to repeat nd ask them three questions, that they still haven't answered. a., simple questions with no predisposed answers. a, do any of our republican colleagues, do they -- this is the question, believe that climate change is real? >> we don't know the answer. >> second, do any of our republican colleagues over there believe that the it is caused by human activity? >> we don't know the the answer. >> and, c, do they have any planned proposal, suggestion, as how we deal with the issue? >> we don't know the answer. >> and i would ask my colleague to ask our republican friends if they have an answer to any
of those questions to yield the floor to them. >> i would be glad to yield the floor to any of them that would be willing to recognized. but the problem is through the leader that they keep talking about a $93 trillion cost which is a report from the american action forium, a partisan right-wing group funded by the the coke brotsders and karl rove as a sister group to his group. that's what we're debating. >> if we can ask them to not repeat the same talking points about what they're against and finally say something about what they're for. so i would yield to any of my friends on the otherside of the aisle who have concrete positive proposals for dealing with the crisis of climate change in our country and on the planet. >> mr. president. >> the the senator from wyoming. >> thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor to answer the
specific questions. and i would point to an op ed that i wrote for the the "new york times" last year. perhaps the senator from new york doesn't read his hometown newspaper but there's an editorial, "new york times," december 18, cut carbon through innovation, not regulation. the it is a plan. cut carbon through innovation, not regulation. the question is, do we believe that the the climate is changing? do humans have an impact? the the answer is yes to both. as a matter of fact, i wrote it, the climate is changing and we collectively are have a responsibly to do something about it. right here, "new york times," december 18. second, the united states and the world will continue to rely on affordable and abundant fossil fuels, including coal, to power our economy for decades to come. we need to also rely on innovation. not new taxes, not punishing
global agreements. that's the the ultimate solution. and i will point out that this is something that i had written and submitted and published long before the so-called green new deal was ever introduced into congress in the house or the senate. i go on to say, people across the world are rejecting the the idea that carbon taxes and raising the cost of energy is the answer to lowering emissions. because we know, as i go on, in france, the government has just suspended a plan of fuel tax increase after some of its citizens took to the streets in prothe test. it was every story on the news and in the united states the the results of the november election showed that these plans and other government interventions are just as unpopular. voters in washington state rejected the creation of an expensive tax on carbon emissions. in colorado a ballot measure to the severely restrict drilling was defeated. in arizona, voters rejected a
mandate to make the state's utilities much more dependent on renewable energy by 2030. they rejected it. regard although of the cost to consumers. so i would point out all three of those states elected dibral democrats to congress on election night. in further answer to that question, i would point to u.s.a. today march 4, 2019. today is the 6th so we're talking monday, today is wednesday. this is this week's paper. front page, to a warming planet's rescue. tolt rescue of a warming planet carbon capture. in the race against climate change scientists are looking for ways to pull co2 out of the earth's atmosphere and store it away. and what they point to is bipartisan legislation. passed by this body, passed by the house, signed into law by
president trump, focusing on carbon capture, sequestration, talks about a program called 45 q that is the the future act. one of the cosponsors from the other side of the aisle is on the floor right now. his name is mentioned, my name is mentioned. in finding the solution. so there are republican solutions and ideas that are focused on innovation, not regulation, not taxation. focused on freedom and the the innovation that we've had. so i've just come to the tell you that there are solutions, the republicans will continue to offer them. we had a hearing most recently, just last week on something called the use it act. again, to capture carbon and to sequester it. we've been working on new age nuclear power. working with leaders around the world. we have passed that and it was signed into law.
innovation for nuclear power. new age nuclear power that will be a smaller reactor, safer reactors, cheaper to use. no carbon whatsoever. so there are absolute solutions and republicans are going to continue to come to the floor. but we're not going to support something that would bankrupt the country, something that would raise the cost of energy for families, something that would drive people to the point of having to spend money they don't have, having our country borrow money that we don't have, all at a time when you say what is the cost? their suggestions and the numbers that have been raised -- i haven't heard any numbers from the other side of the aisle. so i come to the floor to tell you republicans have continued to offer solutions and some of these solutions i've been offering for ten years. it took us a while to get these into law, but they are working, they're working and have been identified as working.
ven president obama's former president secretary of energy came and testified said two things that will make a big difference, one is the new age nuclear work that we're doing and the other is carbon capture and sequestration. those are large-scale products that work. so i see other colleagues on the floor and -- do i have the floor >> the senator from wyoming has the floor. >> if i continue to have the floor, i would like to point out that we have a booming economy in this country. in just over a year with tax relief, it helped create 3 million new jobs, 10 straight months, the fact that we have more people, more jobs available than there are people looking for them, we have a booming
economy. i want to do nothing that will harm these people that are working that have the opportunity, with such a strong bigomy, but this deal, this government takeover of the annomy, it is mast as environmental proposal. to me it is radical. at america, we are leading the world in reducing carbon dioxide because of innovative techniques. we know that what we hear about the green new deal, it is expensive. predictions up to $93 trillion. this alone would cost $93 trillion. you can go by -- how much is going to cost every individual family. it is unaffordable.
it is not something that is workable. it is so far outside the american mainstream, even if it were affordable. what we have seen here is the democrats take another left turn . in just 10 years the energy system under this deal would undergo a washington makeover. that new deal would and the use of energy resources that currently provide power for three out of five homes in the united states. think about the harm that would cause the economy. this green new deal mandates the use of expensive power sources that can't keep the lights on. wind and solar are important. right now wind and solar provide less than 8% of our electricity. should we increase the use in renewables? absolutely, but illuminating affordable coal would be a costly mistake. it is impossible to do.
the electric grid cannot handle it. there was an article in the wall street journal entitled "the green new deal is impossible ," and he writes that the grip itself might collapse, and that is not all we lose if the grid collapses. the transportation system is in the crosshairs. the deal seeks to transforms -- transfer how we travel. it calls for an expensive rail system to replace air travel. the state of california attempted to build a high-speed rail line. it turns out the price was too high, even for california. the governor canceled the line just recently. why? because of the massive cost. it is all part of the green new
deal. the question is if california cannot afford to build a high-speed rail, how can we afford to build a system that crisscrosses the country? we cannot. deal does not stop at energy and travel. it extends to every building, homeowners will be forced to retrofit their houses. businesses would have to do the same. this is what massive government overreach looks like. the rest of the world is going to continue to pollute, even if the country were to adopt something as extreme as the green new deal. it would cancel all of the gains we made here by the fact there that -- that our emissions continue to go down. in 2017 we just produced -- just 13%, china and india together,
33%, and they are rising over there. without changes from india and china -- china, emissions will continue to climb. even if all of these mandates when into effect, there would still be no real effect on the earth temperature. it is no surprise that the democrats are trying to duck this new green bomb. democrats may try to vote present to avoid voting for this proposal, including just about every democrat senator who was running for president. they are all cosponsoring it. this green dream is unreachable, but there is a way to reduce admissions, which is why i talked about what we want to do in a positive way with nuclear energy, with carbon capture, things that have gathered attention and the front page of usa today on monday.
withll continue to work the future acts, and the committee will continue to act as republicans are committed to finding solutions to innovation, not taxation, regulation, solutions that do not hurt our strong and healthy growing economy. i yield the floor. >> it is hard to know where to .egin this is ridiculous, but what i wanted to ask is where it said in that deal that we could not have ice cream. i have looked everywhere. i was shocked that we were going to be able to have ice cream. there is nowhere that it says that they are outlawing ice cream. for people who like cheeseburgers, i don't see anything in there about that. as the lead democrat in the agricultural committee who works
with farmers every day and appreciates the work they are doing to stop pollution, i would just have to stay -- say it is silly if it wasn't so serious how the republican majority and their leader is mocking what is probably the most serious issue of our time. there are many things i care about and the people of michigan care about, but if we don't get affecte on this, it will every part of our economy, every part of our life. if the majority leader wants to say or others want to say this -- we are declaring a war to outlaw air travel or ice cream, that is absurd and would be funny if the subject wasn't so serious. that, then to
republican majority leader said --end air travel ts. just for the .ecord, cows don't fart they belch. us to sayn't join that this is real and man-made, that we need to act, and we have the responsibility act, let's start there. that't want to hear somehow the world is coming to an end if there is a proposal that passes, and that has something in its place that addresses what is happening in terms of the threat to all of us and our families. this is real. this subject is real. it needs discussion. we can have differences on how to address it, and that is fine.
but to mock the whole subject of what is happening right before our eyes, we have to make up new names for weather events. not only do we have polar vortexes where the cold is floating down because of the warming in the arctic, but we have bomb cyclones or cyclone bombs, but wind events that come at 60 or 80 miles an hour into a community. we are having to make up new terms for what is happening right in front of us. i would hope that when it comes to this discussion and what is happening on the weather and climate change, that we would games, stop making stuff -- stuff up and have a serious discussion about how we
can come together, create new jobs, move the economy, stop carbon pollution in nature that our kids and grandkids have something to be proud of. coverser: matthew daly congress as they return from the break. there will be a vote on that green new deal. once that proposal in which lawmakers were involved in creating it. it is a plan by the democrats , and the plan basically would try to address climate change with a proposal that would basically try to wean nassau oil and natural gas and onto renewables such as wind and solar. there are other elements not related to energy such as health care and education and housing.
it is a very big proposal that affects all aspects of the economy. is theof your pieces headline, o'connell wields the green new deal as a bludgeon against democrats. mitch mcconnell scheduled this vote on the proposal? tell us about that. >> i think he believes that they have sort of an advantage over the democrats because it is kind of a big plan that really doesn't have a tax -- price tag. on anell has fixated number of 93 trillion, which is , buty just a wild estimate basically they feel it is so big , the republicans feel it is so big and undefined that they can define it in any way they want. they can use it against the democrats. >> you pointed out some past
incidents where they have done that. they will need 60 votes to advance this, and i understand a number of democratic senators are pending on voting present. >> i believe most will vote present. the idea is to take the air out of the balloon that mcconnell set up, that if they vote against it they look like they are opposing their own plan. if they vote present, they can say it is a procedural motion, and we are just trying to show the world o'connell is not serious about addressing climate change. when you talk to democrats about it. they always ask what does the republican plan? mcconnell and others have not put together a really good plan on that. i think that is something the democrats will try to emphasize. announcer: the washington post reports that william barr is expected to release the main conclusion of special counsel robert mueller's investigation as early as today the post says
the attorney general and deputy attorney general are at the justice department today to review the report on the russian involvement. the justice department is expected to release a summary of the report to lawmakers today. ♪ announcer: get to know the freshman members of the 116th congress monday. learn more about the most diverse group of lawmakers in history. am authentic. i will not be a polish politician. >> i am just a small town lawyer. >> i am a mcdonald's franchise c for 22 years. >> i have a fantasy -- fascination to winding answers to ideas. >> i have been a physician for all of my professional life.
announcer: watch washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern monday morning. join the discussion. >> once tb was simply three giant networks and a government supported service. then in 1979 a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. let the viewers decide on their own what was important to them. c-span open the doors to washington policymaking for all. we bring you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since, the landscape has changed. there is no monolithic media. broadcasting has given away to narrowcasting. is more relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span. it is funded as a public service by your cable or said light provider. on